R
I sent a question to one apologetics site, but the one who read it did not understand what I meant. This was my fault, as I did not make the right emphases. Here is the question that I sent:
I have a question and a possible answer that raises another question:
Why do people in the Old Testament act so "cartoonish" in their dedication to evil? In the case of the pre-flood, why was everyone evil but one person plus his family? Sweden today is full of all sorts of evil, but there are real Christians who number large, even if not by percent. Why in the case of the necessity to kill the Amalekites, why was it that all of the Amalekites acted in such a way that needed earthly judgment? I didn't realize this seemed odd until I realize that none of the Kenties [sic] acted in this manner (I suppose the flip-side is "why did all Kenites act in a manner not deserving judgment?").
My tentative answer is that the Holy Spirit not being on the earth caused this, but that just makes me wonder why it was so easy then for the Ninevites to repent like a flip of a switch collectively (and once again, all, not some).
The answer that I received focused on "that they sinned" (which he seemed to think that I didn't understand), not "why they all sinned."
What I meant when I had asked this was, "Why was it that some wholes of human groups acted like a single, homogenous moral entity?". It wasn't the case that "a good portion of humanity" was sinful, but rather "everyone except for eight people" were sinful, in the case of the Flood. In the case of the Amalekites, it was the case that "every single Amalekite" was sinful, and not "some Amalekites" (this is an extrapolation of 1 Samuel 15:3, which says "kill them all" and not "kill some;" Ezekiel 18:20 indicates that God punished "eye for eye" and nothing extra or overkill). In the case of the Kenites, why was it that no Kenite acted in a way deserving the same death that the all of the Amalekites did? Remember, God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11, Acts 10:34).
If it was the case that the absence of the presence of the Holy Spirit within Christians keeping the other people regulated and in check (I meant this in the question, but the answerer thought I thought that He simply was not on Earth at all, so He directed me to Genesis 1:2 and 6:3, which doesn't help for the context), then why was it that all Ninevites "put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them"? Why was it that every Why was it that God spoke in totality when He said that over 120,000 people could not discern from right to left (I understand the figure of speech as meaning unrighteous and righteous, so perhaps the first part [lacking qualifiers like "most of"] is also a figure of speech, as God, the Creator of humans who use metaphors, probably also uses metaphors in conversation, but even Japan has a very tiny minority of Christians)?
I understand the human tendency to act in groups. But this is mostly general. Arabs are mostly Muslim, that's a fact, no getting around it, but some Arabs are Christian or Jewish (Mizrahim). Feminists are pro-abortion, but some feminists are anti-abortion (because they rightfully understand that abortion degrades women to sex objects that are more easily "re-used"). They may be minorities, but they are some. These minorities are greater than eight people (but then again, we don't know the world population at the time in the pre-Flood time). Why does the Bible speak in these instances (once again in repeating "some and not all," not in all instances: not all of the spies were afraid of the giants) in terms of "all" as opposed to "most"?
Mind you, I am a Bible literalist, which is the only reason that I have a problem with this. If I were a liberal interpreter, I would just blow it off as pure exaggeration. "The heart of the intelligent getteth knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge," you know? So don't blow me off as questioning God.
Before you answer this question, ask yourself this: if Jesus asked you this question to test your knowledge, do you think that the answer you gave would have been the one that you would have given at the best of your abilities (Col 3:23)?
I have a question and a possible answer that raises another question:
Why do people in the Old Testament act so "cartoonish" in their dedication to evil? In the case of the pre-flood, why was everyone evil but one person plus his family? Sweden today is full of all sorts of evil, but there are real Christians who number large, even if not by percent. Why in the case of the necessity to kill the Amalekites, why was it that all of the Amalekites acted in such a way that needed earthly judgment? I didn't realize this seemed odd until I realize that none of the Kenties [sic] acted in this manner (I suppose the flip-side is "why did all Kenites act in a manner not deserving judgment?").
My tentative answer is that the Holy Spirit not being on the earth caused this, but that just makes me wonder why it was so easy then for the Ninevites to repent like a flip of a switch collectively (and once again, all, not some).
The answer that I received focused on "that they sinned" (which he seemed to think that I didn't understand), not "why they all sinned."
What I meant when I had asked this was, "Why was it that some wholes of human groups acted like a single, homogenous moral entity?". It wasn't the case that "a good portion of humanity" was sinful, but rather "everyone except for eight people" were sinful, in the case of the Flood. In the case of the Amalekites, it was the case that "every single Amalekite" was sinful, and not "some Amalekites" (this is an extrapolation of 1 Samuel 15:3, which says "kill them all" and not "kill some;" Ezekiel 18:20 indicates that God punished "eye for eye" and nothing extra or overkill). In the case of the Kenites, why was it that no Kenite acted in a way deserving the same death that the all of the Amalekites did? Remember, God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11, Acts 10:34).
If it was the case that the absence of the presence of the Holy Spirit within Christians keeping the other people regulated and in check (I meant this in the question, but the answerer thought I thought that He simply was not on Earth at all, so He directed me to Genesis 1:2 and 6:3, which doesn't help for the context), then why was it that all Ninevites "put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them"? Why was it that every Why was it that God spoke in totality when He said that over 120,000 people could not discern from right to left (I understand the figure of speech as meaning unrighteous and righteous, so perhaps the first part [lacking qualifiers like "most of"] is also a figure of speech, as God, the Creator of humans who use metaphors, probably also uses metaphors in conversation, but even Japan has a very tiny minority of Christians)?
I understand the human tendency to act in groups. But this is mostly general. Arabs are mostly Muslim, that's a fact, no getting around it, but some Arabs are Christian or Jewish (Mizrahim). Feminists are pro-abortion, but some feminists are anti-abortion (because they rightfully understand that abortion degrades women to sex objects that are more easily "re-used"). They may be minorities, but they are some. These minorities are greater than eight people (but then again, we don't know the world population at the time in the pre-Flood time). Why does the Bible speak in these instances (once again in repeating "some and not all," not in all instances: not all of the spies were afraid of the giants) in terms of "all" as opposed to "most"?
Mind you, I am a Bible literalist, which is the only reason that I have a problem with this. If I were a liberal interpreter, I would just blow it off as pure exaggeration. "The heart of the intelligent getteth knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge," you know? So don't blow me off as questioning God.
Before you answer this question, ask yourself this: if Jesus asked you this question to test your knowledge, do you think that the answer you gave would have been the one that you would have given at the best of your abilities (Col 3:23)?
